DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 and 07/31/2025 were filed after the filing date of this application on 04/19/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “a vertical location of a distal tip of the redirection plate is located below an upper end of the first deflector assembly and above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly” in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the term “may” in lines 1 and 3. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“product carrying unit” in claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 19-20.
“gas circulation assembly” in claims 13 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“product carrying unit” corresponds to “any suitable configuration, such a tray(s), an elongated trough(s), and/or an endless conveyor belt(s) having perforations, openings, apertures” as disclosed in paragraph [0031] of the specification.
“gas circulation assembly” corresponds to “a collection of suitable number of fans” as disclosed in paragraph [0037] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the claims recite “a vertical location of a distal tip of the redirection plate is located below an upper end of the first deflector assembly and above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly”. However, in paragraph [0059], Applicant discloses “a vertical location of the lower or distal tip of the redirection plate 144 is located generally equidistant from the distal end of the second flow resistance guide plate 142 and the top of the heat exchanger assembly114”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear how “a vertical location of a distal tip of the redirection plate” would be located “below an upper end of the first deflector assembly”. More clarity is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “product” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the phrase “to substantially prevent product” will be interpreted as -- to substantially prevent the product --
Regarding claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 20, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what “substantially” is. Thus, this term renders the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “tray side extender” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the phrase “wherein tray side extender” will be interpreted as -- wherein the tray side extender --
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the tray side extender is offset from vertical” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited the claim is confusing because it is not clear what structure is designated as being vertical. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “wherein the tray side extender is offset from vertical” will be interpreted as if it is reciting -- wherein the tray side extender is offset from a vertical direction” --
Regarding claim 4, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “about” is. Thus, this term renders the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the term “generally about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “generally about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what “generally about” is. Thus, this term renders the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the claims recite “a vertical location of a distal tip of the redirection plate is located below an upper end of the first deflector assembly and above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly” which renders the claim indefinite. However, referring to the drawings and specification (paragraph [0059] and Fig. 6), the distal tip of redirection plate 144 is provided above both the upper end of the first deflector assembly and the top surface of the heat exchanger assembly. Therefore, the arrangement disclosed by the claim is not supported by the drawings or specification rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the term “close” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what “close” is. Thus, this term renders the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “product” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the phrase “to support product” will be interpreted as -- to support a product --
Claim 13 recites the limitation “treatment gas” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the phrase “to be treated with treatment gas” will be interpreted as -- to be treated with the treatment gas --
Claim 13 recites the limitation “product” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the phrase “to substantially prevent product” will be interpreted as -- to substantially prevent the product --
Regarding claim 19, the term “generally below” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally below” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “generally below” is. Thus, this term renders the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “treatment gas” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the phrase “circulating treatment gas” will be interpreted as -- circulating the treatment gas --
Claim 20 recites the limitation “product” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the phrase “substantially prevent product” will be interpreted as -- substantially prevent the product --
Claims 2-3, 5, 10-12, and 14 are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hof et al. (WO2006126870A1, herein after referred to Hof).
Regarding claim 20, Hof teaches a method (the method disclosed in Col. 14 lines 25-31) of managing product overblow (disclosed “dust and crumbles of food products” in Col. 14 lines 16-24) for a gas treatment system (cooling means 6, blowers 4, and fans 5 Fig. 1) configured to treat a product (disclosed “food product” Col. 7 lines 19-25) by circulating treatment gas (disclosed “gas or a gas mixture” in Col. 5 lines 21-26) from a heat exchanger assembly (cooling means 6 Fig. 1) through a product carrying unit (conveyor belts 20 Fig. 1), the method comprising: circulating the treatment gas from a heat exchanger (cooling mean 6 Fig. 3) toward the product carrying unit (Fig. 3 and Col. 6 lines 18-25); prevent the product from leaving a product treatment zone of the product carrying unit (processing space 3 Fig. 1 and Col. 6 lines 3-5); and directing overblown product (disclosed “dust and crumbles of food products” in Col. 14 lines 16-24) that has left the product treatment zone into an overblow landing area (Col. 14 lines 16-24 where the disclosed “outside of the IQF apparatus 11” corresponds to the overblown landing area) separate from the heat exchanger assembly (Col. 14 lines 16-24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fajerson et al. (WO2005073649A1, herein after referred to as Fajerson) in view of Hof.
Regarding claim 1, Fajerson teaches a product overblow management assembly (side walls 5 and partition 15 Fig. 1) for a gas treatment system (evaporators 16 and fans 17 Fig. 1) configured to treat a product (paragraph [0038]) by circulating treatment gas (disclosed “air” in paragraph [0046]) from a heat exchanger assembly (evaporators 16 Fig. 1) through a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1), the product overblow management assembly comprising: a first deflector assembly (side walls 5 Fig. 1); a product treatment zone of the product carrying unit (compartment 3 Fig. 1); and a second deflector assembly (partition 15 Fig. 1); an overblow landing area (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) separate from the heat exchanger assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fajerson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit; the second deflector assembly configured to direct overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area”.
However, Hof teaches a first deflector assembly (second limiter 42 Fig. 10 corresponds to the first deflector assembly of Fajerson) configured to prevent a product (Col. 6 lines 3-5 where the disclosed “food products” correspond to the product of Fajerson) from leaving a product treatment zone (second zone 35 Fig. 10 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) of a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 20 Fig. 10 corresponds to the product carrying unit of Fajerson); a second deflector assembly (curved plate 41 Fig. 10 corresponds to the second deflector assembly of Fajerson) configured to direct overblown product (disclosed “dust and crumbles of food products” in Col. 14 lines 16-24) that has left the product treatment zone into an overblow landing area (Col. 14 lines 16-24 where the disclosed “outside of the IQF apparatus 11” corresponds to the landing area of Fajerson) to separate the food product from dust and crumbles (Col. 14 lines 16-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Fajerson to include “the first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit; the second deflector assembly configured to direct overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area” in view of the teachings of Hof to separate the food product from dust and crumbles.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the overblow landing area is defined between the product carrying unit and the heat exchanger assembly (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the product treatment zone includes an area (trough 2 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) in which a product bed (bottom surface 4 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) forms and an area (portion of compartment 3 located above trough 2 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending upwardly from the product bed (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 13, Fajerson teaches a gas treatment system (evaporators 16 and fans 17 Fig. 1), comprising: a housing (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson); a heat exchanger assembly (evaporators 16 Fig. 1); a gas circulation assembly (fans 17 Fig. 1) for circulating treatment gas (disclosed “air” in paragraph [0046] and Fig. 1) within the housing (Fig. 1); a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1) configured to support a product (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 1) to be treated with the treatment gas (paragraph [0038]) circulated within the housing and upwardly through the product carrying unit (Fig. 1); and a product overblow management assembly (side walls 5 and partition 15 Fig. 1) comprising: a first deflector assembly (side walls 5 Fig. 1); a product treatment zone of the product carrying unit (compartment 3 Fig. 1); and a second deflector assembly (partition 15 Fig. 1); an overblow landing area (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) separate from the heat exchanger assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
536
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fajerson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit; the second deflector assembly configured to direct overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area”.
However, Hof teaches a first deflector assembly (second limiter 42 Fig. 10 corresponds to the first deflector assembly of Fajerson) configured to prevent a product (Col. 6 lines 3-5 where the disclosed “food products” correspond to the product of Fajerson) from leaving a product treatment zone (second zone 35 Fig. 10 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) of a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 20 Fig. 10 corresponds to the product carrying unit of Fajerson); a second deflector assembly (curved plate 41 Fig. 10 corresponds to the second deflector assembly of Fajerson) configured to direct overblown product (disclosed “dust and crumbles of food products” in Col. 14 lines 16-24) that has left the product treatment zone into an overblow landing area (Col. 14 lines 16-24 where the disclosed “outside of the IQF apparatus 11” corresponds to the landing area of Fajerson) to separate the food product from dust and crumbles (Col. 14 lines 16-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Fajerson to include “the first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit; the second deflector assembly configured to direct overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area” in view of the teachings of Hof to separate the food product from dust and crumbles.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the gas circulation assembly is located below the product carrying unit (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and between the heat exchanger assembly and the product carrying unit (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Claims 2-9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fajerson and Hof as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Rothstein (US 5448898).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the first deflector assembly includes a first tray side (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending from a first side of the product carrying unit (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson), a second tray side (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending from a second side of the product carrying unit (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson), and a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending from the second tray side (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
944
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first tray side extending upwardly from the first side of the product carrying unit, the second tray side extending upwardly from the second side of the product carrying unit, the tray side extender extending upwardly from the second tray side towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit”.
However, Rothstein teaches a first tray side (the top portion of second side wall 16 Fig. 3 corresponds to the first tray side of Fajerson) extending upwardly from a first side of a product carrying unit (Fig. 3 where the bottom portion of second side wall 16 and conveyor belt 15 correspond respectively to the first side and the product carrying unit of Fajerson), a second tray side (the top portion of side wall 17 Fig. 3 corresponds to the second tray side of Fajerson) extending upwardly from a second side of the product carrying unit (Fig. 3 where the bottom portion of side wall 17 corresponds to the second side of the product carrying unit of Fajerson), a tray side extender (intermediate wall 26 Fig. 3 corresponds to the tray side extender of Fajerson) extending upwardly from the second tray side (Fig. 3) towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit (longitudinal center axis of conveyor belt 15 Fig. 3) to provide an adjustable side wall (Col. 3 lines 22-41) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first tray side extending upwardly from the first side of the product carrying unit, the second tray side extending upwardly from the second side of the product carrying unit, the tray side extender extending upwardly from the second tray side towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit” in view of the teachings of Rothstein to provide an adjustable side wall.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein a distal end of the tray side extender (distal end of intermediate wall 26 Fig. 3 of Rothstein) is located above the heat exchanger assembly (Fig. 3 of Rothstein where cooling-coil battery units 12 correspond to the heat exchanger assembly of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 4, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach wherein the tray side extender is offset from vertical (the vertical direction of housing 1 Fig. 3 of Rothstein) at an angle (Fig. 3 of Rothstein).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
However, Rothstein does disclose “The side wall 17 is adjustable transversely of the longitudinal direction of the trough 11, between the end positions shown in FIGS. 2 and 3” (Col. 3 lines 27-29 and Figs. 2-3) which would result in intermediate wall 26 forming various angles with the vertical direction.
Thus, the disclosed “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an angle which is “between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a tray with plates extending away from the sides of the tray, was disclosed in the prior art by Rothstein, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a resistance guide assembly (boundary wall 18 Fig. 3 of Rothstein) defined at a distal end of the tray side extender (Fig. 3 of Rothstein).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the resistance guide assembly configured to reduce air resistance as air flows up and over the distal end of the tray side extender”.
However, it is understood that claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configure to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a redirection plate (partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending vertically downwardly (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) from an interior upper surface of the gas treatment system (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) that is configured to redirect air and overblown product (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) flowing over the tray side extender downwardly toward the overblow landing area (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the redirection plate is located half-way (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) between a horizontal location of the product carrying unit (location of conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and a horizontal location of the heat exchanger assembly (location of evaporators 16 Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 8, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach wherein the redirection plate extends downwardly from the interior upper surface of the gas treatment system (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) such that a vertical location (corresponds to the vertical location of the distal tip of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) of a distal tip of the redirection plate (distal tip of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) is located above an upper end of the first deflector assembly (upper end of side wall 5 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly (top surface of evaporators 16 Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a velocity of air flowing close to the redirection plate increases as it passes over a distal tip of the redirection plate to help separate product overblow from an air stream and direct the product overblow toward the overblow landing area”.
However, Applicant discloses in paragraphs [0060] and [0061] of the specification that “the air flows downwardly along the length of the redirection plate144 until it reaches the distal end of the redirection plate 144. When the air reaches the distal end of the redirection plate 144, the air flow direction changes, turning approximately ninety degrees (90°) towards the heat exchanger assembly114. As the air flow direction changes, the velocity of the air flowing adjacent to and/or close to the redirection plate 144 increases”. In other words, the change in direction of the airflow at the edge of the plate results in an increased air velocity near the plate. Therefore, given the location of partition plate 15 relative to the airflow and the change of direction experienced by the airflow (Fig. 15) disclosed in Fajerson are substantially similar to that in instant claims 9 and 18, it is the Examiner's position that partition plate 15 taught by Fajerson would inherently have the instantly claimed function of “wherein a velocity of air flowing close to the redirection plate increases as it passes over a distal tip of the redirection plate to help separate product overblow from an air stream and direct the product overblow toward the overblow landing area”. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish a nonobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, According to Bernoulli principle, the velocity of a fluid such as air will increase when the fluid is moving from a higher pressure zone to a lower pressure one. Referring to Fig. 1 of Fajerson, compartment 3 experiences a higher pressure than space 13 since the suction ends of fans 17 are located in space 13. Therefore, the velocity of airflow F near partition plate 15 Fig. 1 will increase when the air is moving from compartment 3 to space 13.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a redirection plate (partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending vertically downwardly (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) from an interior upper surface of the housing (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) that is configured to redirect air and overblown product (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) flowing over the tray side extender downwardly toward the overblow landing area (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 17, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach wherein the redirection plate extends downwardly from the interior upper surface of the housing (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) such that a vertical location (corresponds to the vertical location of the distal tip of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) of a distal tip of the redirection plate (distal tip of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) is located above an upper end of the first deflector assembly (upper end of side wall 5 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly (top surface of evaporators 16 Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fajerson and Hof as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Overbye (US 4177647).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a bypass assembly configured to be selectively opened to adjust treatment gas velocity through the product carrying unit”.
However, Overbye teaches further comprising a bypass assembly (adjustable dampers 26 Fig. 1) configured to be selectively opened (Col. 5 lines 50-68 and Col. 6 lines 1-14) to adjust treatment gas velocity (disclosed “flow of pressurized freezing air” Col. 5 lines 50-68 where it is understood that the velocity of a fluid is directly proportional to its volumetric flow rate) through a product carrying unit (conveyance deck 10 Fig. 2 corresponds to the product carrying unit of Fajerson) to permit the system to operate with full evaporator heat exchange efficiency while discharging air at the optimum rate (Col. 6 lines 1-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising a bypass assembly configured to be selectively opened to adjust treatment gas velocity through the product carrying unit” in view of the teachings of Overbye to permit the system to operate with full evaporator heat exchange efficiency while discharging air at the optimum rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763